lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [linux-pm] Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway
    From
    Date
    > > Yes, fuse could handle being frozen there.  However that would only
    > > solve part of the problem: an operation waiting for a reply could be
    > > holding a VFS mutex and some other task may be blocked on that mutex.
    > >
    > > How would you solve freezing those tasks?
    >
    > OK, you made me reach for literatur on theoretical computer science.
    >
    > IMHO the range of actions a fuse server is inherently limited.
    > You must never ever block on a lock one of your clients is holding. In
    > this case the limitation is not influenced by the freezer.

    Obviously. But I wasn't about the server trying to acquire a lock
    held by a client. I was talking about a client trying to acquire a
    lock held by _another_ client.

    If this coincides with the server (or some other task which the server
    is depending on) being frozen before the clients, the freezer has a
    problem.

    > The freezer introduces a further limitation in that the server can freeze
    > before the client, which must not be. You can prevent that by freezing
    > the servers last.
    >
    > In principle you might have dependencies between servers and you won't
    > catch that, true. You won't catch servers blocking on IPC, but you are
    > balancing on the edge of deadlock with fuse anyway.

    Huh?

    Miklos
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-07-05 22:49    [W:0.020 / U:60.692 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site